About your Search

20121204
20121204
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
when the obama administration got belarus to give up their highly enriched uranium too. their stockpile of the material was taken away and secured by the united states. the guy in kazakhstan, the guy who named a national holiday in his own honor, he agreed to give up a portion of his country's highly-enriched uranium and all the risk that goes with it. it's remarkable that coup tries that used to be part of a soviet union, these countries agreed to give up their nuclear weapons and that they also agreed to give up material used to make nuclear weapons. so while there are a lot of things to worry about with belarus, we can worry a little less about their stockpile because they let us lock some of it up. american policy that makes this a priority is now more than 20 years old. it goes back to 1992. it's the cooperative threat reduction program. it's named after the senator sam nun and richard lugar. this is one of the things that our government does. you may remember me wearing a funny outfit when we traveled to mexico while they were giving up the last of their jury rain yum. working wit
from the paralyzing effects of the toxin. this new intelligence has the obama administration so concerned, harsh warnings came from the president himself. >> i want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command the world is watching. the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable. >> reporter: a senior official tells abc news there are contingency plans for military action if the weapons became a threat. the syrian regime said it would not use chemical weapons under any circumstance, but president ass assad's father used them, and assad himself has been massacring his citizens for nearly two straight years. martha raddatz, abc news, washington. >> it's a little hard to believe since tens of thousands of folks have been killed already, use of chemical weapons would be off limits to the syrian regime right now. considering rebels have made advances that may be one of the most powerful weapons the government has in its arsenal rig
at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, even more so than the george w. bush of administration, you look at senior officials who go to asia, throughout the region, and also the discussion and attempt to courtney with china. there seems to be a lot of that to try to coordinate. but again coming back to jim steinberg was the fourth member of this panel would happily and armitage and joe knight looking at the die you island dispute, and said they were shocked and surprised why the level of miscommunication, ms. assessment and dangerous of that between china and japan. so it raises them up question of whether or not, i agree. i know china wants respect to whether or not what you are seeing is a strategic game, or tactical game by china to use its potential ms. assessment to kind of look like the unstable part in some of his to basically help push out some interest. and that we've been a little bit. >> steve, i think the essential question is not of domination or respect, it's about whether it will be static of whether it will be dynamic. and there is no way that n
.s., the obama administration, nato now obviously very concerned about the regime of president assad potentially using chemical weapons, poison gas against its own people. here's the question, what is the difference killing civilians in syria with bombs from jet fighters or attack helicopters as opposed to using say poison gas or chemical warfare? >> that's a good question. in one sense in moral terms, there is no difference and almost 40,000 people have died in syria already. but i think the use of chemical weapons and poison gas, i think the fatalities would be very much greater. and it does cross a line. these aren't judgments that you can make in any scientific way. but i think what your administration, the international community is signaling to president assad, if you cross that line, there will be a strong reaction. >> those are tough words coming from president obama, from secretary of state hillary clinton, from the nato secretary-general today in brussels. but is that enough to president bahar al assad from using chemical weapons or is there something else the international community s
by the bush administration first, and then, of course, were increased by the obama administration. it's important to recognize that the eslc report is not political in any way, shape or form. it endorses things that are heartily supported by the right , in some cases, and on the other hand that are supported by people on the left. it's important to recognize you can't just take the parts that you like. you have to take the wholistic approach, which is to, again, maximize u.s. production and to at the same time significantly reduce consumption partly by diversifying our transportation sector away from petroleum. now, the last thing i'll say before we sit down is it's important to recognize that petroleum use in transportation is the pivot point of this entire problem. about 70% of our 18.7 million barrel per day use of petroleum in this country is for transportation, and transportation is fueled about 93% of the time by petroleum. so if you want to reduce the united states' dependence on imported petroleum and the related geopolitical issues that that causes, particularly in an era whe
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)